Vinnytsia court denies 6,000 UAH claim over washing machine kept after separation

A local civil court in Vinnytsia denied Olena Hnatiuk’s claim for 6,000 UAH from Taras Hnatiuk over a washing machine he kept after their separation. She sought half its claimed current value, saying it was shared property; he opposed payment and asked to keep it.

The court found that Olena had proved neither the shared ownership underlying her claim nor the amount requested. It ordered no payment and made no separate declaration about who owns the machine.

The purchase receipt supported the machine’s purchase during the marriage for 18,000 UAH and payment from Olena’s household bank account. But it did not establish who owned the money in the account or what the parties intended about ownership of the machine.

Both parties relied on different accounts of a birthday message, but neither produced it or another record of its wording. The court did not accept either description as established fact. Taras had not proved that the machine was a gift, but that did not shift Olena’s burden to prove the basis of her claim.

The receipt also showed the purchase price, not the machine’s current value. Olena supplied no current valuation or calculation supporting her request for 6,000 UAH, and the court did not find that Taras had proved a different value.

Olena said the machine was bought for the marital home and argued that the receipt provided a concrete basis for treating it as shared property. She said the birthday message referred to her mother’s contribution to the purchase, not a gift of the whole machine.

She acknowledged that she had no independent evidence of the machine’s intended use or ownership of the account funds, and that the receipt did not establish current value.

Taras said the message described the machine as a gift to him and disputed both the payment claim and the asserted used value. His submissions also referred to support based on need and ability to pay, but the court said this was a property claim, not a support request.

The dispute arose after the couple separated and Taras kept the washing machine. Olena’s claim treated 6,000 UAH as half of a claimed current value of 12,000 UAH.

The ruling resolves the monetary claim on the evidence presented. It does not establish that the machine was a gift or otherwise settle ownership through a separate declaration.